I doubt there will be one solution.
Biodeisel will surely be utilized for trucking, buses, tractors, and other highway usage.
In the city, I think a combination of electric or compressed air will be used. A typical family might have 2 vehicles, one for everyday use around the city, running on compressed air or electric, and another that is a biodeisel or ethanol used periodically on the highway.

"It doesn't make sense when you consider how much gas is wasted just to produce the stuff (fertilizer, tractors, etc). It's not like you can grow a garden in the backyard and make all the ethanol you'll need! "

I heartily disagree with this. Why can't anyone envision agriculture become more efficient and modernized? Everything else in society will evolve to be more efficient, why not farming? Today's farmer is accustomed to cheap gas, so they have never looked towards efficiency as a concern. There is no reason they can't start developing efficient agriculture. Organic farming is growing rapidly. Tractors will switch over to biodeisel or be replaced by a more production line style farming. Today's tractors are million dollar machines that can farm 100's of acres in a day, and then sit idle most of the year. Why can't smaller electric tractors attached to solar arrays do the job over a few weeks instead? Possibly on an autopilot rail system? Once established, there'd be no cost and no pollution to run the farm equipment. Just set up a rail system on the farm connected to a solar array so it works like an assembly line, but out in the field.

And yes, I do believe I could grow enough biofuel in a good sized yard. Assuming that technology continues to get better, ala plug in prius etc. A plug in hybrid deisel could get over 100 miles a gallon. With my 6 mile commute, 5 days a week, that means I need about 15 gallons of biofuel per year. This is a pipedream, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities. Obviously electric/compressed air is more likely in the commute situation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood\";p=\"96985)</div>

Because you only have a narrow window in which to grow your crops, and you need to be working full out at peak efficiency to get as much done as you can in that window.

And why waste it growing ethanol? Why not grow normal crops, and just use the waste to produce biodiesel which could not only power the tractors, but our cars as well.

Ethanol produces a net loss of energy - using oil-based fertilizers to produce biomass to convert to pseudo oil products. Ethanol is a short-term, stop-gap measure at best and is not sustainable. Biodiesel makes sense at the local level, but is still based on combustion, not zero emissions. Even ZEVs still have a 2.5 µm particulate problem as dust is stirred up by driving on pavement and soil.

Crops will increasingly become more appropriate to soils, precipitation, evapotranspiration, wind and transportation, i.e., we will not use center pivot irrigation to grow alfalfa in arid climates. Tree fruit will be appropriate for soils, wind and climate to optimize yields and minimize inputs. West of the 100° meridian where precipitation drops off and potential evapotranspiration is greater than precipitation, irrigation-dependent lawns will disappear as "phantom farmers" discover it is not cost effective to grow a "crop" and then throw the crop away every few days.

These will not be overt decisions, but rather, decisions based on energy. The one million square hectometers of center pivot irrigation crops will continue to be grown on the Paloose Prairie (eastern WA & OR, western & southern ID) as farmers are becoming more efficient with planting, growing, irrigation, harvesting and soil management.

Constructive, sustainable solutions require full consideration of net energy costs (not short-term gross energy costs) and increasingly follow the Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) examples of integrated sustainability for homes, businesses, schools and churches. Rather than single-source centralized power sources, we will increasingly make use of distributed renewable sustainable sources: conservation, solar, wind, water and efficiency.

As fossil and liquid fuels become scarcer and more expensive, consideration of oil and pseudo-oil will transition to renewable and sustainable forms of energy. Individual vehicles will continue for business and private use but we will make increasing use of Magnetic levitation (MagLev) trains for large-scale transportation, and electric vehicles, bicycles and walking for individual transportation.

Prius is just a quality first step in the transition.

"Now since nearly everyone bashes GM for saying that fuel cells will be commercially viable in 10 years... either people have to bash Toyota or admit GM was right.. Decisions, Decisions"

I think GM made a huge mistake in canceling the
EV1 program - they could regain the technological high ground if they resurrected it. An I think Toyota made a hugh mistake when they cancelled the electric RV4 program. I'd sell my Prius in a second (as much as I like it) it I could get an EV1 at a reasonable price. I think a lot of Prius owners feel the same way - hence the desire to add the EV switch. Electric vehicles are the future - battery technology is progressing far faster than fuel cell technology and no new infrastructure is required.

So... when do I get my flying car?

Doesn't anyone else notice the similarity, how some promises of the past just plain never actually materialize?

Turbines were at one time thought to replace the combustion engine. That certainly didn't happen.

Now fuel-cells are magically just suppose to reduce our reliance on non-renewables. Why aren't we focusing on the real need instead? That required electricity has to come from somewhere. How come that infrastructure isn't being expanded to take advantage of wind? It just plain doesn't make any sense that schools don't have a turbine on their property. They are large chunks of publicly funded land that have a profound influence on our children. Imagine if they grew up seeing that renewable power source in action, helping to keep the school costs low. Eh?

A solution like that provides a rapid return too. It's not a money-pit that requires a decade of monetary support before even a penny is seen flowing in the other direction.

Imagine how long the engine of a 2015 Prius will last. It will be a little puny thing, only running when the high-density battery-pack and supplemental ultra-capacitor need some extra power. Why is that being ignored? It will be directly responsible for significantly reducing the need for gasoline & ethanol.

Fuel-Cells only provide a promise that won't even be practical for a very long time. Until we see portable combustion power-generators being replaced by fuel-cell stacks, why is it a sound investment expecting them to be realistic for vehicle use... which have far more demanding implementation of the technology? Notebook computers could benefit tremendously from the micro fuel-cell stacks. Imagine instantly getting another 4 hours of power simply by slipping in a new methanol cartridge. Where is that technology we were promised?

Hype about what "could be" needs to get real eventually. The NiMH battery had a modest beginning, replacing the troubled NiCd battery. It took awhile for cost to come down and for the design to be refined, but the rewards are becoming quite obvious now. Why are some so anxious to abandon that in favor of fuel-cells?

I fully agree with John. We need to just start building wind and solar farms. We as a society will find a way to use the energy. This will work better rather than creating more energy uses before we have the energy sources, which would encourage quicker dirty energy sources (coal, oil).

If you build it, they will come....
Just like the Twin cities transit. The opposition said no one wants it, but once up and running, people are using it in far greater numbers than they thought.

Of course for anything remotely close to wind and solar farms, we need the people in power to NOT represent the existing energy producer (oil companies).

BTW: we are currently shipping most of the solar panels produced in the US to other countries, partly because of the weakened dollar, but also due to US government lack of foresight.

Well, with all this talk of finding alternative energy sources for our cars I haven't heard anyone bring up the alternative of coolies. We could give out of work factory workers a new career pulling us around town. I know there could be emission problems but this could be minimized with a carefully controlled diet.

Just a modest proposal.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26\";p=\"96971)</div>

I did a quick google search and discovered that Toyota has been prototyping a fuel cell hybrid for a couple of years now. The latest is called the FCHV-5 which is based on a Highlander.

Now, everyone here keeps telling me that the whole fuel cell car industry is just a Bush plot to make money for the oil companies. Now it looks like Toyota is in on the plot too. With Bush pulling the strings of Toyota, what are we to do now???? Who will we buy our cars from?

A few weeks ago, I went to a lecture by Dr. Lewis in CALTECH (Pasadena, CA), who's a prominent figure in the field of renewable energy.

In a nut shell, he says SOLAR power source is the only way to sustain the energy demand in the US and the rest of the world with growing populations (China + India etc) for the upcoming decades. Nuclear, biomass, coal, oil etc just don't have the capacity, not to mention the devastating carbon gas = greenhouse effect on the planet. He also warned the greenhouse effect & melting polar ice etc, which we all aware.

...maybe not the president, though. Did you all catch the news? The secretary of Bush Administration wrote a "thank you" letter to the Exxon-Mobile lobby for "helping us decide to reject the Kyoto (Greenhouse gas limitation) treaty."

The link is in the Alfranken show blog.

Ugh!

BTW, I think

gradual transitions from...

Prius (Gas-hybrid) ==> Prius+ (High-capacity battery, plugin EV-hybrid) ==> 2012 Prius (EV-hybrid?)

is perfectly reasonable, no? Once the battery capacity/efficiency improves, I think 100-200... maybe 300mpg shouldn't be too far fetched.

My GF is a PhD in fuel cell, but she still thinks it's 10-20 years away before commercial fuel cell cars are marketed, let alone flying cars.

In the style pioneered by Victor, which I enjoyed greatly in a previous thread!


June 30th 1993....
Emissions laws look set to toughen up and gasoline is looking a bit expensive, so the GM execs call a meeting....

GM Execs: "We need an alternative to gasoline. Anyone got any ideas?"

(engineer at back) "I betcha I can make a decent battery electric vehicle"

GM Execs: "Hmmm... any other ideas? No? OK then, here's about 1 billion dollars, that should get you started."


December 8th 1996
The first GM EV1 electric car is leased to the public.

GM Execs: "That's a fast car. And zero emissions. But the range is a bit crappy. Can you do anything to improve it?"

(same engineer) "Sure, I can put some better batteries in. The best you can get today are nickel metal hydrides, about 50 watt-hours per kilo - should give a range of about 100 miles."

GM Execs: "OK then, here's some more cash.."


March 12th 1999
GM leases next generation NiMH battery EV1 to the public.


January 17th 2001
Sales are falling. The company is in a downward spiral. GM execs meet to consider how they will rescue their position as leader of future markets.

GM Execs: "That EV1 was a nice start, but can't you make the range any better?"

(same old engineer) "Sure, there's these new batteries called lithium-ion that just keep getting cheaper and better every year. Look set to reach 200 watt-hours per kilo soon, which would give the EV1 a range of 400 miles on one charge."

GM Execs: "Hmmm.... but folk still hate having to wait hours to recharge the damn things."

(engineer) "Ah, don't worry about that. Rumour has it the next generation batteries will be able to recharge in under an hour."

GM Execs: "Yeah we doubt that. Anyway we've now decided that the whole battery idea is crap. We've decided to invest all future research funds into hydrogen fuel cells instead."

(engineer).. stunned... "Good grief, have you any idea how inefficient they are compared to batteries? Or how much it's going to cost to get them working in vehicles?"

GM Execs: "Yeah, we don't care what the math says. You can refuel them in like 10 minutes. So we're setting aside 1.5 billion dollars for the project."

(engineer) "But you can't give up on the EV technology! We're the world leaders in this technology, we've got a huge headstart!"

GM Execs: "What all those EV1s? No, we've just made plans to scrap them all. While you were out. There's the door, we've called you a cab... goodbye!"


September 2003
AC propulsion debut the lithium-ion powered T-zero sports car. 0-60 in 3.6 seconds. Range is 300 miles on a single charge.

GM Execs: "Hey, has anyone read this? How are those fuel cell things coming along??"

Other GM Execs: "Hey, relax! Lithium-ion takes ages to recharge, it'll never threaten the fuel cells. By the way, have we crushed those EV1s yet?"


February 29th 2005
Toshiba announces latest generation lithium-ion battery for use in EV and hybrid automotive applications. Recharges to 80% capacity in 1 minute and full capacity in 5 minutes, works from -40oC to +60oC and looks set to last tens of thousands of deep cycles.

GM Execs: "Oh, boll***s."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kazu88\";p=\"97287)</div>

There is plenty of roof space in this country to mount solar panels!

I also wonder where they think all the hydrogen is going to come from? :roll:
Currently, most of it is coming from natural gas.

Earth-based (rooftop, etc.) Solar photovoltaics help, but it would be very expensive to use them for a large fraction of our needs. To make up for limited and somewhat unpredictable local daily availability they'd need a very extensive and expensive world-wide transmission network and storage systems.

I once thought it was wacky, but a very persuasive case has been made that Solar power stations in orbit would be the least expensive long term comprehensive solution.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(thorn\";p=\"97326)</div>

Natural Gas at first, since that is technology that is already in place.

But then...

Tanker ships with windmills mounted on them could go out into the open ocean and use all that wind energy out that that we can't really use any other way. The ship turns sea water into hydrogen and sails back to port with a full load. The ship can go where the winds are. A German company is currently converting a tanker ship to do just this to test the concept. http://www.energybulletin.net/3111.html

Several companies in a variety of countries are experimenting with a concept generally referred to as "Solar Hydrogen". This is a photoelectrochemical process that uses solar cells to directly split water into hydrogen and oxygen without first generating electricity. The following article is about a British company who is installing the technology at a gas station in Las Vegas and will soon be dispensing hydrogen. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,128...2,65936,00.html

A bunch of universities and companies are are investigating using the heat generated by concentrating sun light to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. One such is http://www.hionsolar.com/n-hion96.htm

A lot of research is being done on hydrogen production using bacteria as well as other biological processes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher\";p=\"97342)</div>

Storage is a problem, but since they could be spread out, generating power at the source of demand (ie house, businesses) one would not need to upgrade the "transmission network". If you can cut demand you would not need as much power, ie increased efficiency. Usually demand is high when the sun is out (AC) and PVs would help offeset this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(thorn\";p=\"97347)</div>

No problem with storage. Use hydrogen. Solar cells use the photoelecrochemical process I referred to in my other post to split water from a water tank into hydrogen, which is then stored in another tank. A hydrogen fuel cell is then used to generate electricity on demand and outputs water vapor. The water vapor is condensed into water and is put back into the water tank. Every once and a while, you top off the water tank.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher\";p=\"97342)</div>

Dr. Lewis adressed that. The key is to decrease the cost of solar panel, to the level of a can of paint bought in Home Depot etc. He calls it "Solar paint." If that is achieved, we can solve all the energy demand/green house gas problem.

Solar station in the Earth's orbit is a cool idea, but the transmission of the energy produced is a HUGE problem.

interesting article. but i dont believe it either. i think a conversion using solar and wind more efficiently is the only sustainable resource we have. as much as many hate to admit it, oil has several unreplaceable uses (none of those uses involves cars) and we need to conserve oil for THAT reason. afaic, hummers can rot on the side of road.

another unrelated thought, i knew the Land Cruiser is considered the de facto standard for 4 wheeling (i mean REAL off-road driving) but hadnt realized that they sold nearly a million of them a year.

why John won't get his flying car

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a\";p=\"97115)</div>

The flying car, that perennial icon of the future, will likely not happen anytime soon. There are three ways you can lift a vehicle: wings/propeller as in airplane; rotors as in helicopter; or ducted fans. A guy named Taylor designed a flying car in which the wings, tail boom and propeller were towed behind the vehicle when it was in car mode. As a car, it's performance was mediocre; as an airplane, it's performance was mediocre. Several were built and one lives at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. Novel, but not practical. The qualities that make a good car work against it being a good airplane.

If rotors are used, you have a helicopter, which is the most difficult vehicle to fly. Inherently unstable. What do you do with the rotors when you are driving? So, that leaves us with ducted fans. Ducted fans have been used experimentally on backpack lifting devices, but were abandoned because they are death traps if the engine fails. A ducted fan system can fit into the footprint of a land vehicle, but it has NO OPTIONS if the engine quits, and that's the main reason why John won't be getting his flying car anytime soon.

There's a guy named Moller in Northern California who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 40 years working on the "Skycar". He has a few sexy looking prototypes, but none has ever flown to FAA specs, and likely will not. Again, it would be a suicide vehicle for sure.

http://www.moller.com/skycar/

Sorry for the diversion.
Think of the fuel consumption if rush hour traffic were flying!!